The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The need for randomization in the study of intended effects
Abstract
The need for randomization as a means of controlling confounders is accentuated in the study of intended effects (efficacy) as compared with unintended ones (toxicity). The basic reason is that the indication for intervention is inherently a confounder in the study of efficacy but not of toxicity, whereas contraindications represent only a minor confounder even in toxicity research. Moreover, control of the indication in non‐experimental terms is commonly infeasible owing to the complexity and subtlety of the indication.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Lederer, D. J., & Martinez, F. J. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1705751 · Cited by 2,056
Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?
van der Worp, H. B., Howells, D. W., Sena, E. S., Porritt, M. J., Rewell, S., O'Collins, V., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245 · Cited by 1,354
Lund, J. L., Richardson, D. B., & Stürmer, T. (2015) · Current Epidemiology Reports · doi:10.1007/s40471-015-0053-5 · Cited by 739
Langan, S. M., Schmidt, S. A., Wing, K., Ehrenstein, V., Nicholls, S. G., Filion, K. B., Klungel, O., Petersen, I., Sorensen, H. T., Dixon, W. G., et al. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k3532 · Cited by 550
When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials?
Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16261-2 · Cited by 538
Metadata
- Authors
- Miettinen, O. S.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1983-04
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 267-271
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2022211849
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The need for randomization in the study of intended effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.4780020222
- The paper
- Miettinen, O. S. (1983). The need for randomization in the study of intended effects. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780020222
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
